Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.
An association consists simply in the public assent which a number of individuals give to certain doctrines and in the engagement which they contract to promote in a certain manner the spread of those doctrines. The right of associating in this fashion almost merges with freedom of the press, but societies thus formed possess more authority than the press. When an opinion is represented by a society, it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. It numbers its partisans and engages them in its cause; they, on the other hand, become acquainted with one another, and their zeal is increased by their number. An association unites into one channel the efforts of divergent minds and urges them vigorously towards the one end which it clearly points out.
The second degree in the exercise of the right of association is the power of meeting. When an association is allowed to establish centers of action at certain important points in the country, its activity is increased and its influence extended. Men have the opportunity of seeing one another; means of execution are combined; and opinions are maintained with a warmth and energy that written language can never attain.
Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association there is a third degree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoral bodies and choose delegates to represent them in a central assembly. This is, properly speaking, the application of the representative system to a party.
If, among a people who are imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, or are exposed to violent political passions, by the side of the majority which makes the laws is placed a minority which only deliberates and gets laws ready for adoption, I cannot but believe that public tranquillity would there incur very great risks. There is doubtless a wide difference between proving that one law is in itself better than another and proving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter. But the imagination of the multitude is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so apparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects to represent the majority. If, near the directing power, another power is established which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former, we are not to believe that it will long be content to speak without acting; or that it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration that associations are meant to direct opinions, but not to enforce them, to suggest but not to make the laws.
In America the liberty of association for political purposes is unlimited.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Unethical corporations??
Guess that means Unions are unethical as well.
Oh wait. They only give to Dems. Never mind. No way they could be called unethical. Just the "evil" corporations that give to both parties are unethical.
Got it.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
I'm convinced. You're as partisan as most of the right wingers and as stupid as Willow Tree [didn't know your posts carry that much influence, huh?)
This is not a 'partisan' matter.
It absolutely is. Your party is slavishly wed to corporate interests, and you're promoting a policy that creates even more corporate corruption in the political system.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Why is Union Money limited? They need to do a better job of selling their value to increase/drive membership and stop forcing public employees and taxpayers to fund them so they can fund Democrats. Between public service unions and ACORN-derived organizations, where and how in God's name did The Democrat Party feel they are entitled to taxpayer funds for their election efforts.
BTW, Democrats did a good job of getting Corporate Money in 2008.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Public sector unions have been handicapped after WI laws took effect (people voluntarily left).
Citizens United merely gave Corporations and Unions equal footing in elections. Your objections are understandable- but highly hypocritical.
It is true that business interests motivate them to support candidates that are friendly to them- which usually translates to conservative politicians as opposed to liberal ones. But do also note that corporate donations are limited to speech.
That said, it is not like Obama is not well connected in corporate America-he is. Why he is out on the campaign fund raising trail blazing away~ He is doing so at the expense of the tax payer in the most blatant manner. I hope this behavior is not so blatantly repeated when it is Romney's turn to run for his second term- but I also hope if he does, you remember your support of Obama's doing so.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Why is Union Money limited? They need to do a better job of selling their value to increase/drive membership and stop forcing public employees and taxpayers to fund them so they can fund Democrats. Between public service unions and ACORN-derived organizations, where and how in God's name did The Democrat Party feel they are entitled to taxpayer funds for their election efforts.
BTW, Democrats did a good job of getting Corporate Money in 2008.
Taxpayers don't fund unions, but nice try.
The Democrats did a good job at getting corporate money in 2008 because it was certainty they'd win the election.
No it doesn't. It allows for unlimited money from corportations and other special interest groups to compete with limited union money.
Public sector unions have been handicapped after WI laws took effect (people voluntarily left).
Citizens United merely gave Corporations and Unions equal footing in elections. Your objections are understandable- but highly hypocritical.
It is true that business interests motivate them to support candidates that are friendly to them- which usually translates to conservative politicians as opposed to liberal ones. But do also note that corporate donations are limited to speech.
That said, it is not like Obama is not well connected in corporate America-he is. Why he is out on the campaign fund raising trail blazing away~ He is doing so at the expense of the tax payer in the most blatant manner. I hope this behavior is not so blatantly repeated when it is Romney's turn to run for his second term- but I also hope if he does, you remember your support of Obama's doing so.
Equal footing? That's a laugh. Even pre-Citizens United, corporations had a huge edge.
Corporations, the greedy rich were outspending unions, the good rich, and conservation groups, etc., 30-50 times on campaigns and LOBBYISTS (who are doing the real damage) before Citizens. Now the greedy rich/greedy, polluting corps can go nuts on campaigns too. The greedy rich etc get a lot more for their money from Pubs, unless you worry about the good of the country....
Pub dupes! Dumbest voters in the world...
Why is Union Money limited? They need to do a better job of selling their value to increase/drive membership and stop forcing public employees and taxpayers to fund them so they can fund Democrats. Between public service unions and ACORN-derived organizations, where and how in God's name did The Democrat Party feel they are entitled to taxpayer funds for their election efforts.
BTW, Democrats did a good job of getting Corporate Money in 2008.
Taxpayers don't fund unions, but nice try.
The Democrats did a good job at getting corporate money in 2008 because it was certainty they'd win the election.
where do public unions get their money from?
Whe will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections.
No it doesn't. It actually increases the amount of money unions are allowed to spend on elections.
When will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections. Now the upper hand is being shifted to the right.
Even Rachel maddow appeared to admit that though she probably didn't mean to.
After all they had now problem when Obama outspent McCain and have no problem with unions pouring money into elections.
My opposition to CU v. FEC is it is anti-democratic. It matters not if Unions or Industry or foreign nations make and enforce our laws. What CU does is puts more power (influence is power) in the hands of powerful self intersts and reduces the power of the individual.
Public sector unions have been handicapped after WI laws took effect (people voluntarily left).
Citizens United merely gave Corporations and Unions equal footing in elections. Your objections are understandable- but highly hypocritical.
It is true that business interests motivate them to support candidates that are friendly to them- which usually translates to conservative politicians as opposed to liberal ones. But do also note that corporate donations are limited to speech.
That said, it is not like Obama is not well connected in corporate America-he is. Why he is out on the campaign fund raising trail blazing away~ He is doing so at the expense of the tax payer in the most blatant manner. I hope this behavior is not so blatantly repeated when it is Romney's turn to run for his second term- but I also hope if he does, you remember your support of Obama's doing so.
Equal footing? That's a laugh. Even pre-Citizens United, corporations had a huge edge.
Please provide proof of your claimed facts.
Whe will those on the left admit that their opposition of Citizens United stems from the fact that it removes the power of union money in elections.
No it doesn't. It actually increases the amount of money unions are allowed to spend on elections.
You missed a word or two in that sentence. The truth is that Citizen's United increases the amount of money unions can legally and openly spend on elections. The truth is they have lost a serious portion of their spending advantage being that their opponents are no longer constrained and they don't like it.
Taxpayers don't fund unions, but nice try.
The Democrats did a good job at getting corporate money in 2008 because it was certainty they'd win the election.
where do public unions get their money from?
The membership of the union. And I know your argument is going to be that since those members are paid via taxes, that means taxpayers are funding the union. Of course, if you apply that reason across the board, you're funding every union, because private-sector unions are also funded by members, who get their paychecks from companies that pay them out of the money used purchasing their goods. There's also that pesky thing about how union members have to earmark their money to be used for political purposes (election spending out of the union's general fund is illegal).
